"This is a very nice way to put it. It doesn't quite capture my utter moral abhorrence of the episode's conclusion, though."
I always try to put things nicely on/. because my opinions are generally the sort that would get me flamed and/or modded down to oblivion if I stated them in anything other than a non-aggressive manner.:-)
I do tend to agree with you, though. And to me, the worst part of the doctor's opinion is that he treats evolution as a moral principle, not just a scientific explanation for the development of life and civilization. That bothers me for several reasons --- one of which being that evolution is an inherently ruthless process of the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. To put it mildly, I don't see that as something a civilized species should derive moral principles from. (Unless, of course, your civilization is Klingon.)
It was definitely thought-provoking, but my enjoyment of it was muted by the fact that I disagreed with the conclusion.
I hardly think it's morally correct to deny a race the cure to their genetic disease in favor of what might happen thousands or even millions of years in the future. To me it's the same moral question as "Does the end justify the means?" --- should one do something that seems wrong in the present in order to promote a future good?
Besides, on a more practical note, I think it would have made for more interesting character development later in the series if Archer had taken the opposite opinion and stuck to his moral guns, even if that meant a rift developed between him and Phlox. It would be fun to see the captain and the doctor at each other's throats!
That's why you never, EVER let your employer know anything about anything you do that isn't done explicitly for their business if you can at all help it.
Not to mention, Trillian isn't even free (as in beer) any more. Yes, I know they still release a "free" version, but it lacks even features I'd consider critical.
"How can God be omnipotent if human free will is more powerful than God's will? Does God not have a free will himself?"
Yes. He could certainly overrule mankind's free will if He so chose. The whole point is that He chose not to do so.
"Anyway, if God wanted us to be "saved" he could make his existence known to the world without compromising anybody's free will. (How difficult can it be for a supposedly omnipotent being to leave *hard* evidence of his existence around in a world he supposedly created?)"
Some people would say that the complexity and nature of the universe demands the existence of God. To me, this is hard evidence.
I'd also note that the Bible contains numerous examples of God acting directly and obviously, and people disobeyed Him anyway. Read the book of Exodus for an example --- after the plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, the Hebrews still built themselves an idol at the first opportunity.
Perhaps God no longer acts in obvious ways like this because they simply don't work.
As long as the uncut movie is still available, and the "censored" editions are very clear that they're edited, then why should there be any problem? Those who want to hear the cussing and see the sex scenes will buy the unedited version, and those who don't will buy the edited version. Seems like it's just a case of giving people what they want to see. I don't think it's violating the director's rights as long as the original version is still available. It only becomes censorship when you deny people access to the unedited version.
The Space Trilogy is an interesting read. If nothing else, it makes it blindingly obvious that Lewis was a good friend of a certain other writer mentioned frequently on Slashdot (and I'm not referring to Douglas Adams).
The Screwtape Letters on film. Now that would be interesting. Of course some lawyer in CA would call up and complain, saying something about how Christianity shouldn't be put in American theatres.
Actually, I think it more likely that Jerry Falwell would go on the 700 Club and whine about the movie just because it's about demons.
(Disclaimer: I'm a conservative Christian, but I don't mind lampooning my own side sometimes;-) )
It's a dirt dauber. We have tons of 'em in Mississippi. They're harmless. I didn't know there were any in Washington. Maybe I accidentally took a few of them with me when I visited the state a few years ago:-D
"Hope you didn't buy WC stock!"
I didn't. Not much, anyway. (I work for them, and I did NOT put much of my 401K money into WCOM stock. I thank God every day for that little piece of foresight.)
Actually, they've been planning those 17,000 layoffs for a while now. (I know, I work for a WCOM company... at least this week.)
It's anybody's guess which came first, the scandal or the axe.
Re:Can it compete with KDE?
on
Gnome 2.0 RC1
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't really know. I'm really looking forward to Gnome2 since I've been quite happy with the current release.
My perceptions have usually been the opposite from yours: after using both desktops extensively, I usually find Gnome to be smoother, more responsive, less resource-intensive, and more intuitive than KDE. Of course, that's all just my personal opinion. I'd really have to say that they're both shaping up quite nicely and they're both "high-level" desktops.
You're darn right about that. I'm a redneck and proud of it, and the BSA ain't gettin' anywhere NEAR my computer. My friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson guarantee that.
Honestly, I've seen a number of posts that went against the status quo get modded up.
Personally, I'm very conservative (which is a viewpoint that's generally not particularly popular on slashdot), and I haven't had many posts to get modded down just because they disagree with the mainstream.
If one posts one's opinions respectfully and without attacking or demeaning the opposite viewpoint, one is much less likely to be branded a troll. On the other hand, if somebody who disagrees with the slashdot mainstream posts his opinions in a confrontational manner with a lot of insults and profanity, he's probably much more likely to get modded down as a troll than somebody who habitually describes Microsoft using all the four-letter words in his vocabulary --- even though they probably both deserve the moderation.
All in all, though, I think the moderation system works reasonably well. One can't expect it to work perfectly, but it seems to be quite adequate.
...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message. ... at which point, half of the developers created a distributed computing program to attempt to use brute-force to crack the code, while the other half worked on a decryption algorithm. This continued for several months without success, until a ten-year-old boy, who knew absolutely nothing about cryptography or computers, pointed out that the message was simply written backwards.
I doubt Microsoft will implement pop-up blocking. I don't think they believe users should have that much control over what they see on a website. Microsoft [i]wants[/i] to see the relentless commercialization of the Internet, and pop-up ads are part of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we really trust a handbook that includes blatant sentence fragments?
I always try to put things nicely on /. because my opinions are generally the sort that would get me flamed and/or modded down to oblivion if I stated them in anything other than a non-aggressive manner. :-)
I do tend to agree with you, though. And to me, the worst part of the doctor's opinion is that he treats evolution as a moral principle, not just a scientific explanation for the development of life and civilization. That bothers me for several reasons --- one of which being that evolution is an inherently ruthless process of the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. To put it mildly, I don't see that as something a civilized species should derive moral principles from. (Unless, of course, your civilization is Klingon.)
I hardly think it's morally correct to deny a race the cure to their genetic disease in favor of what might happen thousands or even millions of years in the future. To me it's the same moral question as "Does the end justify the means?" --- should one do something that seems wrong in the present in order to promote a future good?
Besides, on a more practical note, I think it would have made for more interesting character development later in the series if Archer had taken the opposite opinion and stuck to his moral guns, even if that meant a rift developed between him and Phlox. It would be fun to see the captain and the doctor at each other's throats!
What they don't know can't hurt you.
Not to mention, Trillian isn't even free (as in beer) any more. Yes, I know they still release a "free" version, but it lacks even features I'd consider critical.
That is not a claim of Christianity. It's a claim of Douglas Adams.
What the Bible actually says is, "without faith it is impossible to please Him".
Yes. He could certainly overrule mankind's free will if He so chose. The whole point is that He chose not to do so.
"Anyway, if God wanted us to be "saved" he could make his existence known to the world without compromising anybody's free will. (How difficult can it be for a supposedly omnipotent being to leave *hard* evidence of his existence around in a world he supposedly created?)"
Some people would say that the complexity and nature of the universe demands the existence of God. To me, this is hard evidence.
I'd also note that the Bible contains numerous examples of God acting directly and obviously, and people disobeyed Him anyway. Read the book of Exodus for an example --- after the plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, the Hebrews still built themselves an idol at the first opportunity.
Perhaps God no longer acts in obvious ways like this because they simply don't work.
Shoot them into space and wait for Cmdr. Data to find them when the Enterprise runs across yet-another-cryosleep-ship several hundred years from now.
As long as the uncut movie is still available, and the "censored" editions are very clear that they're edited, then why should there be any problem? Those who want to hear the cussing and see the sex scenes will buy the unedited version, and those who don't will buy the edited version. Seems like it's just a case of giving people what they want to see. I don't think it's violating the director's rights as long as the original version is still available. It only becomes censorship when you deny people access to the unedited version.
If you're about to lose a war and have your nation taken over or wiped out, would you care anything about what "international law" says?
The Space Trilogy is an interesting read. If nothing else, it makes it blindingly obvious that Lewis was a good friend of a certain other writer mentioned frequently on Slashdot (and I'm not referring to Douglas Adams).
Actually, I think it more likely that Jerry Falwell would go on the 700 Club and whine about the movie just because it's about demons.
(Disclaimer: I'm a conservative Christian, but I don't mind lampooning my own side sometimes ;-) )
It's a dirt dauber. We have tons of 'em in Mississippi. They're harmless. I didn't know there were any in Washington. Maybe I accidentally took a few of them with me when I visited the state a few years ago :-D
"Hope you didn't buy WC stock!" I didn't. Not much, anyway. (I work for them, and I did NOT put much of my 401K money into WCOM stock. I thank God every day for that little piece of foresight.)
Actually, they've been planning those 17,000 layoffs for a while now. (I know, I work for a WCOM company ... at least this week.)
It's anybody's guess which came first, the scandal or the axe.
I don't really know. I'm really looking forward to Gnome2 since I've been quite happy with the current release. My perceptions have usually been the opposite from yours: after using both desktops extensively, I usually find Gnome to be smoother, more responsive, less resource-intensive, and more intuitive than KDE. Of course, that's all just my personal opinion. I'd really have to say that they're both shaping up quite nicely and they're both "high-level" desktops.
You're darn right about that. I'm a redneck and proud of it, and the BSA ain't gettin' anywhere NEAR my computer. My friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson guarantee that.
It actually says "Requires IE 5 or better". So, I installed Mozilla.
Personally, I'm very conservative (which is a viewpoint that's generally not particularly popular on slashdot), and I haven't had many posts to get modded down just because they disagree with the mainstream.
If one posts one's opinions respectfully and without attacking or demeaning the opposite viewpoint, one is much less likely to be branded a troll. On the other hand, if somebody who disagrees with the slashdot mainstream posts his opinions in a confrontational manner with a lot of insults and profanity, he's probably much more likely to get modded down as a troll than somebody who habitually describes Microsoft using all the four-letter words in his vocabulary --- even though they probably both deserve the moderation.
All in all, though, I think the moderation system works reasonably well. One can't expect it to work perfectly, but it seems to be quite adequate.
From the inside, perhaps.
You'd have to clone him too, since he's already dead.
No, Anakin wins BECAUSE he's evil. Don't you know that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb?
Actually, it would only explode once.
I doubt Microsoft will implement pop-up blocking. I don't think they believe users should have that much control over what they see on a website. Microsoft [i]wants[/i] to see the relentless commercialization of the Internet, and pop-up ads are part of that.